License question

[vdboor]

I noticed this project is under the AGPL3 license, which basically means no-one (except fully open source GPL projects) can use your code. Is this by design?

[tarak]

I have noticed that too and would like to know more too...

[dokterbob]

I am not a lawyer, nor intend to become one but in this particular case the intention of the license is: you're welcome to use the software anywhere. But if you do, you are required to share any changes and/or contributions within this project with the world.

It might or might not be the same as AGPL - if you have suggestions for a license that would better fit the purpose I am open to suggestions.

[vdboor]

Hi @dokterbob, what you describe is the LGPL v2 license, if you want to enforce this legally.
(I'm not familiar with the LGPL3 license either, what it's implications are).

Note that most Python projects are at BSD licensed because it's simple, and everyone understands it. We expect people to be grown ups, to contribute because they love the project, not because some law enforces them. That works fine in the Python/Django community. In the Linux community people face commercial competition, so the LGPL/GPL is there typically used to deal with that.

See this 5 minute talk from Jacob Kaplan-Moss about licenses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhuF0oalOi8 for a quick understanding!

I use the Apache 2 which is comparable to the BSD terms, but it's written in a style that lawyers understand (which is the target audience after all). My Advice: go for the BSD or Apache license, and only use LGPL is you really feel strong about protecting your code.

Note that a license change requires permission for all copyright holders (=all contributors in your case)

[dokterbob]

Actually, the main reason for picking AGPL is so that people running it on their servers are required to share their code. Whereas GPL/LGPL only requires distributing the source when binaries are distributed (which for websites is usually never), AGPL requires this if you offer (web)services based on the software.

I found that it seems there is no clear consensus as to whether using a library in Python constitutes 'linking' in such a way that it requires whole projects to be (A)GPL. I personally feel this is not required as it severely limits the usefulness of the software - which is by no means the intended purpose of (A)GPL'ing it.

[dokterbob]

I am considering adding something like this to the README and LICENSE files of some of my software packages:
"This software is released under GNU AGPL license with explicit exception
that using this software through its API's does not constitute a derivative
work.

In practise, this means that modifying or using this software requires
you to share the source code of this software but does not require you to
distribute the full source code of the particular application making use
of this software.

In other words: share improvements and/or modifications of this software and
you will never ever by sued."

But perhaps there is a license which already works this way. Something like a LAGPL. Any tips?